Am 22.01.2015 um 21:32 schrieb Tod Fitch: > I've been following this and the addrN thread with a mixture of amusement and > irritation. > > Lots of the arguments come down to how easy it is to parse using some tool or > another. Or whether the problem the original poster was trying to address > actually exists. > > With respect objects that have multiple values for a key, the arguments seem > to come down to either: > > 1. key=value1;value2;. . . ,valueN > 2. key:value1=yes + key:value2=yes + . . . + key:valueN=yes > > As a programmer I can parse either set using any number of different methods. > > I am not against using a ":' in the key string to create name spaces and for > grouping related keys. I think that is a very useful construct. > > But from a purely logical point of view, I'd say the second way misses the > concept of "key=value" and is using "key:value" with a noise suffix of > "=yes". Typically missing keys should be treated as having a value of either > "no" or "unknown". Unless you can show me where key:value1="is something > other than yes" then I may suspect you of putting values into the key field > of the data. > > Might I suggest that a convention for keys that may contain multiple values > that the ":" delimiter be used in the key but rather than putting arbitrary > (data) values after the colon, use an numeric index: > > key:1=value1 > key:2=value2 > key:3=value3
No not at all, this makes it worse. Numbers are way to general and you gain little. : is usualy used for subkeys so key1, key2 would even be better. fly _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
